Ron Paul group launches campaign against Internet regulation

Manifesto is silent on the dangers copyright abuses pose to Internet freedom.

The Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian advocacy group founded by congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), is gearing up for an "Internet freedom" project that focuses on opposing government regulation of the Internet.

A draft of the project's manifesto was first leaked by Buzzfeed. It warns that "collectivist special interests" are pushing for harmful Internet legislation.

According to "Internet collectivists," the document says, "'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral." The document criticizes antitrust regulation of successful Internet companies and government micromanagement of everything from the electromagnetic spectrum to tech companies' privacy practices.

Libertarians for the public domain

It's not surprising that a libertarian activist organization would denounce government regulation of the high-tech economy. But we were surprised to see the document denounce the "Internet collectivist" view that "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded."

We don't see anything "collectivist" about expanding the public domain. Due to repeated extensions by Congress, copyrighted works from the 1920s are still under copyright protection, a situation that has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Indeed, a constitutional challenge to Congress's 1998 extension of copyright terms enjoyed the support of the libertarian Cato Institute and Nobel prize-winning economists such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, and James Buchanan.

In a Thursday interview, Campaign for Liberty spokesman Matt Hawes assured Ars that the organization did not intend to endorse today's long copyright terms. "We think the public domain is a terrific part of the Internet," he told us. Rather, he said, the group was worried that "Internet collectivists" would use the phrase "public domain" as "code for getting the government more involved" in copyright issues.

Still, it would be nice for the organization to take a clearer stance against Hollywood-backed copyright legislation that threatens Internet freedom. Ron Paul was an early SOPA opponent, but SOPA is hardly the only example of bad copyright legislation. For example, Congress last added 20 years to copyright terms in 1998. That means we're due for another debate on extending copyright terms between now and 2018. Opponents of that inevitable proposal could use the Campaign for Liberty's support.

More importantly, Congress has already enacted copyright legislation that threatens Internet freedom. Perhaps the most alarming example is the 2008 PRO-IP Act, which gives the federal government the power to seize domain names, servers, and other assets of Internet companies without proving their owners have committed any crime. Libertarians have long railed against the abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws in the war on drugs. There's even more reason to be alarmed about the government using those powers to enforce copyright laws.

A big tent

It's important to remember that the debate over Internet freedom is not strictly a left-vs-right debate. While the left and right are never going to agree on every Internet policy issue, they've frequently found common ground when Internet freedom comes under attack.

In particular, we don't agree with the manifesto's claim that "openness" is an "Internet collectivist" code word for "government control of privately owned infrastructure." Openness is an engineering concept that is embraced by people with a wide variety of political perspectives. There are reasonable arguments against openness being mandated by the government, but there's no reason libertarians should be hostile toward openness as such.

According to "Internet collectivists," the document says, "'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral." The document criticizes antitrust regulation of successful Internet companies and government micromanagement of everything from the electromagnetic spectrum to tech companies' privacy practices.

Once again, proving how fucking stupid Libertarianism is. That's exactly what I've always wanted. To get fucked over on my smartphone bill EVEN MORE than I already am because companies can just horde all the spectrum for themselves regardless of whether they can even utilize it or not.

I'm not sure what he's consistent about -- net neutrality is a regulatory necessity because the government has granted monopolies to cable and telephone companies for providing broadband connections. I agree -- let's get rid of the regulation. Let anyone string coaxial or fiber-optic lines on existing public poles to offer internet access. Consistency would be overturning the FCC LightSquared decision, so wireless access could improve.

Of course, there are some wee complications doing this, but I'm sure the existing cable and phone companies would be fine with having rights to string wires auctioned off on a block by block basis if government regulation is lifted.

Glad he's pushing this. This is an example any political representative should take.

So you'd like to pay 3 times for content you download, rather than twice? Because without net neutrality, you'll pay the content provider, you'll pay your ISP, and you'll pay the content provider's ISP. Their ISP will charge them for the data you downloaded, and then the content provider will charge you for it.

This is why companies like Google and Netflix are strong proponents of net neutrality. What's your argument against it?

I find it unbelievably frustrating when those who purport to believe in 'free markets' don't actually bother to open the Econ 101 textbook far enough to find the definition.

Yes, it is incidentally true that a state-planned market is not a free market; but it does not follow that all non-state-planned markets are free. In practically every market, ISPs are an oligopoly at best and frequently a duopoly. Not just that, it tends to be a choice between the Cable guys, who have a strong incentive to cripple your internet connection in support of their legacy video offerings, and the local Telco which has an equally strong incentive to prop up their legacy voice offering.

Worse, the lousy state of ISP competition doesn't merely undermine the market for internet service, it has the strong potential to undermine <i>all market activity that occurs over the internet</i>. Architecturally, your ISP is in an excellent place to control your access to any vendor on the internet and extract rents by doing so. No matter how vibrantly competitive the internet as a whole is, the vast majority of potential customers live in a town with only two stores, both of which have every incentive to control what actually makes it to the shelf, and at what price, in order to maximize their own profits, with only the weakest shadow of competition between them as a restraint. Nice free market there...

The other thing that seems like a dangerous misconception is the 'Oh, you can't go regulating "big data" at a time when government is conducting increasingly intrusive surveillance.' bit. Hey, guess what? A major part of the government's surveillance push rests on (frequently quite enthusiastic) <i>cooperation</i> from private-sector surveillance entities. Once the surveillance architecture is in place, and the data are being gathered, it is a trivial matter for the state to purchase or subpoena their way into the output. Even if we can trust the data miners of the private sector, we cannot overlook the fact that the state is an obvious and enthusiastic customer; and one that they will end up catering to.

It is a strange position coming from Ron Paul. My best guess is that his group is being perverted by "libertarianish" republicans who joined with the Tea Party. Most Libertarians actually oppose Intellectual Property as a concept, and regard it as a state-granted monopoly which should be abolished (The Mises Institute has plenty of material on the subject, if I remember correctly).

@fuzzyfuzzyfungus You're referring to "competitive markets" not "free-markets". By the way, Hayek wrote that "Perfect Competition" is an imaginary state of affairs in which no competition whatsoever takes place (Any economist not yet completely insane should understand why he said that).

Politicians want to meld a shape so that it fits the distinctive structure of the mold they know about from politics. The make laws for the constituency,and one falisy- is creating law that requires mechanical structure,structure for which does not exist. That is some kind of imagined archetecture that can not be implemented w/o actually having some kind of meaning or 'adding new meaning to: DIY means 'doing it for the government'.

Internet users just want something that is to their advantage when delving to Internet technologies.

Business and Internet users are at competitive ends in any event. Wether it is competition from the businesses themselves,or government that is consisting acting as a business,or controlling business interest themselves.

Where copyright exists for the electronic field,is that there are those that simply would enjoy making 'replication',their own message to control. And the distinction holds true for 'copyright'- but copyright is a business. So figure that out. In a kinder good specific way.

The example is that of 'self employment',whereby the IRS deems that money made over 450$ is considered to be a 'business'. Thing about this is that a 'business is an entity'= that has several or more 'transactions'and 'always keeps an 'open public'. The person cutting the grass (and you know who you are), is still doing so w/o being an 'entity'reflected under 'accounting dialogues'. In short there is no form for paying taxes (if you wanted to) for a 'non-proprietary'self employment. The problem here exists,and is most likely the base point for demeaner for most of what businesses will correspond to as 'debate'. Since there is much,much more in silent to be said about the IRS stealing identity (legally),and to cope with an oration that is subtly indifferent to the synonyms arising from things 'said in practice'. And those that are dramatized as aquanted reference for future example. (a person filing taxes has a certain amount of a personal exemption any way- and the 'Net Profit From Business' ,is not necesary when the IRS could access 'non-proprietary self employment,along with the necesary SS forms w/o it up to the personal exemption . You simply sell your personal Identity and 'self'for a corresponding deliberation of 'accounting'. Since the Net Profit from Business' is not a function of the equation using expenses (and thus assets) to personify such an equation to the function of the business. In other words,your assets where your own,until it was said to be part of that equation.

Any way,most will say this is simple minded. But that is because it is a different ideal from surmising that 'all income of self employment'is from 'all the people' that are a business. Easy sell,and lucky gain for some but not for most.

So whoever is going to be glib. Should make a better statement,and form,and order of it. Since most dont walk through walls that easy. And this is how they have done it for a while now. They intend to expand it further.

Of course the IRS has no way to implement this,and does not recognize 'non proprietary'self employment.

If you note the idea of a 'business being a person'. You will recognize that that wording is not an all inclusive persona. The blue print is there,and still normal 'persons'can get no repreive. I put this as compared to 'copyright',since in certain 'modes',of doing things,recognizing them is the easy part. But being a part of doing things,is just non existant. Do you compain of 'monopoly'- in what reference.

I can see proprietary from non proprietary. But rest assured,they are out there with best erasures money can buy to make your part count.

it doesn't really matter what terminology you use. now that Verizon is trying to apply the first amendment to back it throttling certain traffic, it's just like "who cares anymore". fork everything over to the asshole corporations.

of course, if Google were to become a provider, i'd throw my money at them like it was my job.

I think you've misunderstood the use of the phrase 'public domain' here. That's not surprising because that phrase seems somewhat poorly chosen to me, though the misinterpretation here didn't even occur to me the first time I read it.

The phrase 'public domain' here does not refer to the intellectual property term 'public domain', it simply refers to the domain that is 'public', i.e. owned and controlled by a government.

@Guillermo1989: Most common definitions of 'free market' require that the barriers to entry be low in order to qualify. ISPs overwhelmingly fail that criterion, and do so for fairly fundamental reasons(electromagnetic spectrum is finite, infrastructure buildout is extremely expensive) as well as the... often cozy... regulatory status of incumbent communications companies.

it doesn't really matter what terminology you use. now that Verizon is trying to apply the first amendment to back it throttling certain traffic, it's just like "who cares anymore". fork everything over to the asshole corporations.

of course, if Google were to become a provider, i'd throw my money at them like it was my job.

they should totally buy their own fiber and run their own internet.

Why would they do that when they could just lobby Congress into forcing the other providers to carry their traffic, regardless of how much they dump? More cost effective.

To me this is the ideal case for government. Not to impose it's own strong hand but rather to ensure that no one else can control it based off the recognition that the internet works best this way.

Of course it's same reason I believe in strong campaign finance laws with regards to democracy but obviously didn't get my way there.

I think it's a strong case of understanding when government is good and bad. There are plenty of arguments of the latter but certainly some good cases for the former too.

Strong campaign finance laws - so you like telling people what they can and cannot say? Awesome. And I'm not even referring to money as speech, either: The Citizen's United decision was about a group that made a film (about Hillary Clinton) and were told they could not air the film because it was too close to an election. Essentially, the government denied them their first amendment rights in the name of "Campaign Finance".

The internet works fine, even with the massive corporations running it (since they built almost all of it and run all of the servers, back haul, equipment, etc etc). Why would you want the government to come in and screw it all up?

Gah! Sometimes I like what he says, sometimes I'm floored by his stupidity. Mostly I just want this guy to keep his grubby party off of, well, everything I hold dear. What we need is a real Pirate Party to show the freakin' Libertarians how it's done.

"It's important to remember that the debate over Internet freedom is not strictly a left-vs-right debate."

Election time rhetoric aside, the majority of both parties are pretty much united in the idea that they should have more power, and control more parts of our lives. It's important to remember that the left-vs-right debate is used as a smoke-screen to distract from the fact that much of the time both sides are working together against our interests.

"In particular, we don't agree with the manifesto's claim that "openness" is an "Internet collectivist" code word for "government control of privately owned infrastructure.""

The draft doesn't claim that "openness" means that when *everyone* says it. Just the double-talking activists trying to sneak ACTA/SOPA type stuff through.

To me this is the ideal case for government. Not to impose it's own strong hand but rather to ensure that no one else can control it based off the recognition that the internet works best this way.

Of course it's same reason I believe in strong campaign finance laws with regards to democracy but obviously didn't get my way there.

I think it's a strong case of understanding when government is good and bad. There are plenty of arguments of the latter but certainly some good cases for the former too.

Strong campaign finance laws - so you like telling people what they can and cannot say? Awesome. And I'm not even referring to money as speech, either: The Citizen's United decision was about a group that made a film (about Hillary Clinton) and were told they could not air the film because it was too close to an election. Essentially, the government denied them their first amendment rights in the name of "Campaign Finance".

The internet works fine, even with the massive corporations running it (since they built almost all of it and run all of the servers, back haul, equipment, etc etc). Why would you want the government to come in and screw it all up?

To me this is the ideal case for government. Not to impose it's own strong hand but rather to ensure that no one else can control it based off the recognition that the internet works best this way.

Of course it's same reason I believe in strong campaign finance laws with regards to democracy but obviously didn't get my way there.

I think it's a strong case of understanding when government is good and bad. There are plenty of arguments of the latter but certainly some good cases for the former too.

Strong campaign finance laws - so you like telling people what they can and cannot say? Awesome. And I'm not even referring to money as speech, either: The Citizen's United decision was about a group that made a film (about Hillary Clinton) and were told they could not air the film because it was too close to an election. Essentially, the government denied them their first amendment rights in the name of "Campaign Finance".

The internet works fine, even with the massive corporations running it (since they built almost all of it and run all of the servers, back haul, equipment, etc etc). Why would you want the government to come in and screw it all up?

When Paul and his dupes are ranting about "government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral," remember their alternative: that corporations do so.

The last time I checked, I was not privy to the content of AT&T Board meetings, nor permitted any significant voice in their elections. We have a name for turning power over to the rich, and it is not "democracy." However flawed America's may be, representative democracy at least admits the possibility of serving some of the people some of them time, unlike allowing .01% of the population to own absolutely everything. Where's the "liberty" in that?

But then all those capable of understanding some time ago realized that "Libertarian" is just the latest way for fascists to say "might equals right."

I really believe in the theory of "order through chaos" with everything that is happening right now in the world. The financial environment is so chaotic that I don't think any political push will ever slow down the speed of which it deteriorates. First we'll have a trade war, then a currency war, then a world war. The ash from which the U.S will recover from will be an outcome I'm both afraid of and optimistic for.

When Paul and his dupes are ranting about "government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral," remember their alternative: that corporations do so.

The last time I checked, I was not privy to the content of AT&T Board meetings, nor permitted any significant voice in their elections. We have a name for turning power over to the rich, and it is not "democracy." However flawed America's may be, representative democracy at least admits the possibility of serving some of the people some of them time, unlike allowing .01% of the population to own absolutely everything. Where's the "liberty" in that?

But then all those capable of understanding some time ago realized that "Libertarian" is just the latest way for fascists to say "might equals right."

Buy AT&T stock, and you get to vote. Boom. Done. Easy.

All the rest of your argument might have some validity if it was public cable, but it's not. So unless you plan on taking all that cable and equipment through eminent domain.....

Oh, and it's hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment. Hundreds of billions.

When Paul and his dupes are ranting about "government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral," remember their alternative: that corporations do so.

The last time I checked, I was not privy to the content of AT&T Board meetings, nor permitted any significant voice in their elections. We have a name for turning power over to the rich, and it is not "democracy." However flawed America's may be, representative democracy at least admits the possibility of serving some of the people some of them time, unlike allowing .01% of the population to own absolutely everything. Where's the "liberty" in that?

But then all those capable of understanding some time ago realized that "Libertarian" is just the latest way for fascists to say "might equals right."

Ron Paul is still a better choice than the zombots they are running as a fou choice.

Tho I am for Regulated Libertarians, IE that mindset backed up by simple to the point regulations that are made and reenforced to maximize real competition and cost savings for the public and government.

Of course first off we'll have to amend the Constitution to force the House/Senate and Congress to follow the same rules and laws they pass, put them on medicare/medicaid. Ban House/Senate and Congress members from working for anyone who has ties to the government. Ban them from using insider information to make money. Repeal corporations as people. Enforce if you own more than 5 million you do not get paid in the House/Senate and Congress. Then tax all campaign donations 30% then split it up and give it to those who have 50% less than the top 2's campaign war chest every 6 months to a year. Anything left over after the election cycle goes to social security.

While I am ranting take the pipes away from the ISP and force them to sell data/TV packages to the public on a even playing field, those that build new infrastructure get a 180 day advance window to sell their product to that area before it gets opened up to everyone.

According to "Internet collectivists," the document says, "'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be neutral." The document criticizes antitrust regulation of successful Internet companies and government micromanagement of everything from the electromagnetic spectrum to tech companies' privacy practices.

Once again, proving how fucking stupid Libertarianism is.

No it only shows how 'f-ing stupid' you are that you can't put cause and effect together.

Why is it the libertarianism fault that you don't understand economics at all and you have no clue what effect government regulation of the wireless domain has on competition and markets?

Quote:

That's exactly what I've always wanted. To get fucked over on my smartphone bill EVEN MORE than I already am because companies can just horde all the spectrum for themselves regardless of whether they can even utilize it or not.

How exactly can they 'Horde the spectrum'?

Who exactly do they pay to accomplish this feat?

Oh wait.

That's right.

They pay huge amounts of money to government regulators to allow them to horde spectrum in order to stifle competition so you have to pay them huge amounts of money so you can fart around with your stupid smartphone.

And what is more:

You expect the same regulators that conspire with wireless providers to screw over the American public to now 'save' you from your high network bill bill through 'network neutrality'?

Do I really have to spell out how ass-backwards this logic is?

You give the government the power to regulate the internet and they are just going to use it to screw you over and force you to pay more to politically connected corporations just like they do every other single f-ng time.

Sometimes it makes me think that the majority of the American public is like a housewife that happens to 'fall down the stairs' every time her husband comes home from drinking.

Here is what you are saying:"Oh this time it will be different. Nancy Polosi and John Mccain REALLY do love me and care about me and won't sell me out this time to their corporate donors. Not _THIS_ time. Never mind the drones, never mind the endless wars... that's not them. That is not the real them. They really do care, because this is a Democracy and no Democratic government ever hurt anyone!!"

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.